Anand Compares NV38/R360 IQ

[[3dc]Leonidas]

This is only true if you've forced AF from the control panel. If you use application enabled AF, then you get what the application asks for.

Jap. But, how much apps have own AF settings? 20%?

 

[BRiT]

Jap. But, how much apps have own AF settings? 20%?

Well in particular, the one major game you and everyone else seems to be testing with, UT2K3. So why you state the blatant flasehood that ATI does the same optimizations as Nvidia when the App controls AF, I have no idea.

 

[StealthHawk]

This is only true if you've forced AF from the control panel. If you use application enabled AF, then you get what the application asks for.

That's a bad excuse IMO. The number of games that take control of the AF themselves is quite small.

And the number of games that benefit from trilinear on every stage is small.

Are there any games that benefit from not doing trilinear on all stages? From what I've noticed, apps that gain performance also seem to lose IQ(Aquanox2, Max Payne, UT2003). If there are games that benefit from not doing trilinear on all stages without an IQ decrease, can you name some specific games?

 

[Bambers]

from AT shots nvidia appears to have problems using 4xAA (or capturing it) in more than just homeworld2, F1 is also missing AA.

for that matter he said that there were no noticable differences in jk:ja where the cat3.7s are missing the sabre glow :?

 

[Zvekan]

Leonidas]

This is only true if you've forced AF from the control panel. If you use application enabled AF, then you get what the application asks for.

Jap. But, how much apps have own AF settings? 20%?

I think you are missing the point. I don't remember reading anywhere that enabling AF via control panel offers full trilinear on all stages, so it is ATI's decision to make filtering per stages as they like.

But it is important to say that if application specifically asks for trilinear to be carried on all stages and you enable application AF you will get what applications asks for.

It is not ATI's fault that gamedevelopers don't offer AF sliders in their game - write to developers of your favourite game and ask them to add additional functionalty in upcoming patches.

Zvekan

 

[Xmas]

That's a bad excuse IMO. The number of games that take control of the AF themselves is quite small.

And the number of games that benefit from trilinear on every stage is small.

I can make this decision for myself, thank you.

Maybe his comment was badly worded, but I don't think Leonidas has to get his facts straight.

No, I believe he thought that ATI never did full trilinear, which is not the case. Many people have gotten confused on this issue.

Read the last paragraph of this article written by Leonidas.

 

[Xmas]

I think you are missing the point. I don't remember reading anywhere that enabling AF via control panel offers full trilinear on all stages, so it is ATI's decision to make filtering per stages as they like.

While I can understand your point (It's a driver override, so you can't expect the application settings to work), I don't agree with it. The AF slider should control AF, not mipmap interpolation.
And besides that, it's not about whether this "optimization" is valid regarding the semantics of the control panel, it's about the user not being able to get the best possible quality out of the hardware, and about knowing it when trying do do a fair comparison.

 

[Dave Baumann]

That's a bad excuse IMO. The number of games that take control of the AF themselves is quite small.

And the number of games that benefit from trilinear on every stage is small.

I can make this decision for myself, thank you.

Control panel filtering is a privelidge, not a right. Technically speaking its outside of WHQL certification to provide these at all, since it should be entirely up to the app to specify what is selected.

 

[madshi]

Control panel filtering is a privelidge, not a right. Technically speaking its outside of WHQL certification to provide these at all, since it should be entirely up to the app to specify what is selected.

Maybe, but I thought ATI wants to be the IQ king. If you look at all the reviews, most people are not even aware of ATI's "optimization" (not too long ago you even had to tell Brent about it, if I remember right). And the people that are aware usually don't like it. I find it disappointing that the IQ king doesn't offer the highest possible IQ which the hardware can do.

 

[Dave Baumann]

But they do - if the application requests it.

 

[madshi]

But they do - if the application requests it.

Yes. But only then.

Dave, wouldn't you like to have the possibility to force full IQ via the control panel? You sound like you wouldn't care!

 

[Xmas]

Control panel filtering is a privelidge, not a right. Technically speaking its outside of WHQL certification to provide these at all, since it should be entirely up to the app to specify what is selected.

You're certainly right, but I'm not a lawyer, I want to play games with the best quality possible. And if I get 100+ fps with mipmap banding, I'm certainly going to complain about it - which I have a right to, btw

 

[Dave Baumann]

Yes. But only then.

Dave, wouldn't you like to have the possibility to force full IQ via the control panel? You sound like you wouldn't care!

Sadly, this is the effect, not the cause. I'd like it if every one of the IHV's offered quality options that didn't make me, as a reviewer, chase my tail every time a new set of drivers are sent out. Lets be frank - we all know why this is there and we all know why it isn't going to change anytime soon.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Yes. But only then.

Dave, wouldn't you like to have the possibility to force full IQ via the control panel? You sound like you wouldn't care!

Sadly, this is the effect, not the cause. I'd like it if every one of the IHV's offered quality options that didn't make me, as a reviewer, chase my tail every time a new set of drivers are sent out. Lets be frank - we all know why this is there and we all know why it isn't going to change anytime soon.

Are you hinting at the fact that IHVs like to control the options so that they can ensure their cards arn't made to look bad? Or are you saying that developers are just too lazy to provide proper controls?

What I can't understand why we are still seeing so many games arrive with very limited in-game options to control things like AA/AF & filtering levels. Are the developers not interested in having people set their game visuals properly, rather than through a global setting that may or may not make their games look like trash?

 

[Bambers]

Afaik the reg entry anisotype can still be used to force full trilinear in all, while it would be nice to have all 3 settings in the drivers it would only really annoy me if it became impossible to force all trilinear from the registry.

 

[tEd]

Are you hinting at the fact that IHVs like to control the options so that they can ensure their cards arn't made to look bad? Or are you saying that developers are just too lazy to provide proper controls?

ut2003 flyby is to blame

 

[[3dc]Leonidas]

Control panel filtering is a privelidge, not a right.

Yes and no. Its NV´s privilege to do, whatever they want. And its my privilege, to buy theirs gfx - or not. And if NV/ATI dont offer a full trilinear + anisotropic filter on 80% of all apps ...


PS: Dont ask the programmer of a 1999 game for an anisotropic filter. Ask the programmer of the 2003 gfx driver.

 

[[3dc]Leonidas]

But they do - if the application requests it.

Yes. But only then.

Dave, wouldn't you like to have the possibility to force full IQ via the control panel? You sound like you wouldn't care!

Ack. I dont want force AF in 100 apps. I want one CP with one setting for all.

 

[WaltC]

Control panel filtering is a privelidge, not a right. Technically speaking its outside of WHQL certification to provide these at all, since it should be entirely up to the app to specify what is selected.

You're certainly right, but I'm not a lawyer, I want to play games with the best quality possible. And if I get 100+ fps with mipmap banding, I'm certainly going to complain about it - which I have a right to, btw

You don't have to be a lawyer (thankfully) to understand the control panel is a universal, generic approach to IQ settings which the IHVs have implemented to address the shortcomings of 3d games published without a user interface to control in-game settings. There's a simple reason it can't be perfect running all 3d games without such internal settings controls: all 3d game engines are not equal and don't do things the same way. So when they set up a Cpanel they put in place the best settings for a majority of 3d games without internal settings controls. That is simply the best it's possible to do for Cpanel global IQ settings controls.

If the game developers were doing their jobs we wouldn't even need a Cpanel IQ-settings interface. But they're not, so that's why the IHV's include them, and have for a long time. I will say, though, that if anything the IHVs are guilty of doing too good a job with the Cpanels, because even software developers become overly dependent on them instead of building user settings controls into their games as they should be doing. The developers who think those settings are properly the province of the IHV are wrong, IMO.

The problem with UT2K3 and the Cat Cpanel settings is a case in point. When the Cpanel is set to Application Preference the game can properly instruct the Cats as to which texture stages need to be trilineared, and everything works as it should. When the Cpanel is invoked it overrides the game engine commands to the driver and the global setting is used, and only one texture stage is trilineared. Obviously, then, UT2K3 is an object lesson on why it is better to let each game control the driver's IQ settings through internal settings controls, since you are then dealing with specific commands relative to specific game engines instead of generic Cpanel configurations which are configured based on IHV "best estimates" of what's needed in the majority of 3d games without such controls.

(Obviously, this is an entirely different situation from the current nVidia control panels, which are geared to ignore certain stage trilinear filtering commands whether the user asks for them though the Cpanel or through such in-game settings control as might apply. Much different situation there.)

Another thing about UT2K3 and user IQ settings within the game. Their implementation in the software from the standpoint of a general user is very poor, and documentation from Epic on user adjustment and the conventions and parameters used in thier .ini text files is non-existent, AFAIK. At least, such useful documentation as might ship with the games. That, however, has nothing to do with any IHV. That's Epic's failing, IMO. But to give them credit, Epic at least includes internal user adjustable settings for its engine, which many 3d games simply ignore.

My feeling is that IHVs like ATi should stress to developers that their Cpanel settings are generic, and that if they wish for the Cats to support things outside of the limited general scope of the Cpanel in their games, they need to build in the necessary in-game settings controls so that their customers can get the kind of IQ the developer ostensibly wants his product to display. Some people have suggested that IHVs start including things like Cpanel controls for selecting which texture stages are treated in a game, but I think the IHVs have already made it too easy for game developers to ignore the inclusion of complete in-game IQ feature support. With complete in-game IQ feature support, these things aren't needed in the Cpanel, and game developers need whatever incentive can be provided for supporting API IQ settings in their software products. IMO, of course..

 

[Dave Baumann]

Leonidas]Yes and no. Its NV´s privilege to do, whatever they want.

My earlier statement made no mention of anyone doing whatever they want in the control panel - on the contray in fact. The very fact that it is there shows they are enabling a greater level of IQ control at beyond MS's certification practices. What is not acceptible is not providing the full level of filtering if/when an application selects it.

PS: Dont ask the programmer of a 1999 game for an anisotropic filter.

I wasn't. But, how many games from 1999 and before actually display issues with the filtering levels available through the control panels?